In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

$42 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW berof degrees grantedin variousscientific fieldsbyyearandinstitution. Moreover ,if suchfigures for thesciences werecontrasted with comparable figures for otherperiods and disciplines, onecouldget a moreprecise sense of the growth in the relativesignificance of science in Russiaduringthisperiodand of the reasons for thisgrowth.While Vucinich's bookdoes containinformationof this sort,itssystematic collection intocharts, graphs,or appendices wouldhavebeen ofgreatvaluetogeneral readers andscholars alike. Second,moreattentionmight have beengivento the relationship between Russian science andRussia's militaryandeconomic development. I am nothere suggesting a survey of Russian technology, whichisclearlybeyondthe scope of thework.But suchdiverse figures asSechenov, Chebyshev, and Mendeleevhad tieswith industryor the military, a fact whichsuggests that it wouldbe useful to clarifythe overallextentandnatureof suchparticipation.Informationof this naturemightrevealsocial motives for supporting science aswellastheextentof employment possibilities for scientists outside of academe. Finally,a moreextensive andsystematic comparison of Russia's scientific enterprisewith thoseof othernationswouldhavehelpedto put Russianscience intoperspective andto clarifywhatisdistinctly 'Russian' aboutRussian science. Suchan analysis isespecially germane in viewof the traditionaltension in RussianculturebetweenWesternand Slavicmodels,a tensionwhichbeganwell before•86• and continues eventoday. Thesegapscannotdetract,l•owever, from the significance of what Vucinich hasachieved. Byanalyzing theintellectual andsocial development oftheRussian scientific community duringitsmostexpansive formativeperiod,he hasundertakento doforRussian science whathasneverbeendoneona comparable scale for thescience of anyothernation.The resultisa workof greatimportance for Russian studies, intellectual history,andthehistoryandsociology of science. MARK B. ADAMS Universityo[Pennsylvania Georges Mandel andtheThird Republic.JOHNM. SHERWOOD. Stanford,StanfordUniversity Press, •97o.Pp.xiv,393,illus.$•.95 (us). The tragic politicalcareerof Georges Mandel, which beganon the eve of WorldWar t andendedin martyrdom in WorldWar tt, stands asunhappytestimonyto the vicesof the Third Republicand to the venomous decadeof the t93os.Yet, evenin thissympathetic portrayalof that careerby Professor Sherwood ,onedetects something synthetic abouta manwhose failurewasasmuch hisowndoingasthat of thepoliticalsystem he sought to reinvigorate. Working within a system that rewardedimmobilityand rejectedleadership,Mandel traversed manyof the politicalpositions of histime, and alwayswith a display ofabundantbut cynicalskill.He wasa parliamentary andpoliticalmanipulator with authoritarianreflexes, who appears to havebeenmiredin a conservative nationalism fromwhichhe sought to extricatehimselfonlyafter the debacle of •94o. Then like L•on Blum, with whom he sharedincarceration,Mandel REVIEWS 343 confessed hisdisgust with theselfishness andstupidity of the Frenchbourgeoisie in the decade justpassed, andalteredhisviewsof the workersand the 'people' asa consequence. Bythen,of course, timehadrun outonMandel;FrenchNazis had swornto assassinate him, and he did not live to seethe Liberation. Posthumously hereceived thegenerous accolades of BlumanddeGaulle,whichgave hiscareerthe stampof heroismandwisdom.Sherwood is stronglytemptedto acceptthese accolades asthehistorical verdict,evenwhenhisevidence suggests otherwise; perhaps hehascometo understand hissubjecttoowell. I donotmeantobeungenerous toSherwood, nortominimize hiscontribution tothegrowing literature ontheThird Republic;clearlythereismuchroomfor debateoverthe qualitiesand meritsof Mandel. This is a politicalbiography whichtraces Mandel's political life,and,assuch, isa modelofitsgenre. All that isunconcerned with thepoliticalmanisnot discussed, andtheresultisa solidly researched chronological account ofMandelasClemenceau's right-handman,as political organizer in theGironde aswellasin theChamber, asaspiring minister finallyadmittedto the fold in •934, and aslonelyprophetin the late •93os. ThroughoutSherwood emphasizes that Mandel'sarrogance, his ill-concealed disdain forhiscolleagues, andhisJewishness in a timeof rampantanti-semitism vitiated hiseffectiveness, but more oftenthan not he was a victim of his own politicalcunning. Mandelhad a fatalweakness for politics, an affliction that downgraded political andsocial philosophy andsought to confine men's aspirationsto politicalformulas; hence Mandelcouldissue a callto combatagainst Hitlerbyuse ofthreatandforce, butcould notissue a similar calltofightHitlerismat home bya generous policy of social welfare. Sherwood argues fairlypersuasively thatMandelhadtwoaims,complementary toeachother:thefirstwas orderandcoherence in thepoliticalsystem andthehopethattheconservative campcouldbeweldedintoa disciplined bloc,andthesecond wastogiveFrance a strong foreign policy, marked bytoughness towardGermany. ThusMandel's apparent political oscillations wereduetoapersistent commitment: withClemenceauand certainRadicals,Mandel desiredto eliminatethe foreignvirusof clericalism andtodefend thenationagainst theGermans; withTardieu,Mandel sought tostreamline theparliamentary process andtoprevent concessions tothe Germans; and with BlumandReynaud,Mandel anxiously strove to rally the nationagainst Hitler'scertain aggression. By •936Mandelhad'arrived' asa potential national leader. Afterthecollapse ofthePopular Front, which hehad confidently expected, Mandel mayhave hoped tounitetheanti-fascist Leftand thenationalist Rightunder hisdirection, butthefides of internal turmoiland hatred doomed his effort. Thisleads to twomajorcriticisms, thefirstmuchmoredebatable than the second. Sherwood notesthat 'Mandel lackedonly eloquence to becomethe FrenchChurchill,' but,ashisownanalysis concedes, Mandellacked muchmore, andthatit wasoften'difficult tosaywhathewastryingto do.'Sherwood isa willingvictimof a familiarandlamentable trapin reasoning that all France needed to dowastocreatea national will to oppose Hitler. 'In •936,' hewrites, 'whentheGerman industries wereworkingdayandnightto createa powerful 344 THE CANADIAN HISTORICAL REVIEW war machine, Francedid not havetimefor sociological experiments.' Perhaps. But,why,onemightask,did Francenothavethetimeto giveall of herpeople democratic renovation andsocial amelioration, timetogiveFrenchmen renewed conviction that theywerepreparingto fightfor something worththe sacrifice? Suchwasthebelatedaim of thePopularFront...


Additional Information

Print ISSN
pp. 342-344
Launched on MUSE
Open Access
Back To Top

This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Without cookies your experience may not be seamless.